Honest question. I don't get why a well made lens with half dozen machine ground lenses of a particular shape and in one configuration can cost 10-20x what another well made lens with a half dozen machine ground lenses of a similar shape and configuration? How can the shape of a lens element or the coating cost so much more to produce? What is special about this lens that Canon, Nikon or Sigma could not reverse engineer (i.e. lens shape) and produce for $400?

Manual focus is NOT difficult with the Zeiss - as long as the subject is not moving of course - even on distant subjects, because it is amazingly clear wide open. It pops in the viewfinder more than with any other lens I have ever used.

Lloyd Chambers has tested it against the 135L. Yes it is better corrected and sharper, especially at wider apertures. But it's only the beginning of the story. The Zeiss is a new design which will do justice to the future high MP sensors, likely more than the 135L is capable of.

The only other significant change made over and above the 650D is the ability to preview and apply Canon's 'Creative Filter' processing effects at the point of shooting, rather than adding them as a post-shot process. This ability to preview the effect (as now offered on the majority of cameras), makes it easier to pre-visualize how the final result will look - helping to inspire the capture of images that only work well in conjunction with the processing effect.

Meanwhile, the simplified mode dial removes any possible frustration of running up against the end of the dial's range of motion, and the larger, raised icons could be easier to find and use in low light situations.

Can someone explain why the EXIF of the image of the prototype camera matters? Is it a magic prototype camera that can take pictures of itself from odd angles? Do we think the purported Canon employee had a second prototype camera and handed it to a stranger to take a picture of the first prototype camera to post on the Internet?